why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[BeefStew42791]

You quoted a link to an article that did precisely that. You did read it, didn't you?

Brainwashed is a very nice way to put it. I think you have a serious comprehension problem.

um actually if you pay attention to the post I linked to an article about a gm hydrogen cell vehicle that got near 40mpg..sooo I'm not sure how you can say that that article disproved the theory behind hydrogen powering vehicles.

 

[BeefStew42791]

these things must have a device on them that tricks the gas gauge into thinking there's more fuel in the tank than there really is. that's the only thing i can come up with as to where their numbers come from.

and beefstew, the reason i agree with makg is because he obviously knows his shit. like he's said a million times in this thread alone, it's basic laws of science. you can't go outside those parameters. (not tryin' to kiss ass or anything) he, unlike YOU or any others on here who have been scammed, actually gave us simple comprehensible explanations on why it doesn't work and never will in it's current incarnation. you just tell us you do this and this and this and tada! presto! 10 more mpg's. i hear what you are saying, it just doesn't compute. sorry.

a device that tricks the gas gauge..thats very intelligent..perhaps you would then argue that the truck would run out of gas with the gauge reading about a half tank? what do you think I am stupid?? second of all people who actually know what they're doing don't go by the gas gauge, they fill the tank up, drive so many miles and then refill the tank to determine how many gallons were used in that amount of distance. NEVER TRUST THE GAS GAUGE!

Ok, lets say for a moment that this does violate laws of physics and such, how then would you disprove this entire theory without a sufficient experimentation. Edison was scoffed by thousands that a lightbulb could never be made. You know what he found? 1000 ways not to make a lightbulb and 1 way it works. Now my point is if one is to truely disprove a theory, quotations cannot be made as MAKG has done, proper experimentation must be followed through and my friend I have done the experimentation and I have seen the beneficial results AND I would not hesitate to reveal them when the sincere individual requested them of me.

 

[phatcap]

Don't You Think If This Actually Worked, You Could Go Pick One Up At The Nearest Ap Store, Or Wal-mart Or Anywhere?!!?! And Everyone Would Be Using One? The Only Place You Can Get One Is To Make One Yourself Or Buy One From Some Guy Building Them In His Garage And Selling Them On A Low Budget Web Site. Electrolysis Isn't Exactly New Technology. And Don't Give Me That Garbage About The Oil Companies.

 

[BeefStew42791]

Just because its not bought in a store doesn't mean it can't work. omg what kinda retort was that, lets say hammers weren't bought in a store would you say those don't work? And to tell you the truth I can't say I've been to a lot of custom automotive shops that sell enough custom aftermarket parts to match the online stores. And the only reasons not everyone has them is because 1 they haven't heard about them and 2 there's too many uneducated critics out there that bias everyone against them. I'll say again I have not heard one report of a person who actually did what I have described and it not work for them so OBVIOUSLY it works, just saying it doesn't work doesn't mean your theory is proven true. And I'll say whatever I want about the oil companies, they're all a bunch of money hungry, greedy, overconfident monopolizers. Just because the world's public fails to recognize this doesn't mean its not true either. Ignorance proves nothing.

 

[Evan]

Edison was scoffed by thousands that a lightbulb could never be made. You know what he found? 1000 ways not to make a lightbulb and 1 way it works.

Nobody that I'm aware of who had a strong scientific background scoffed at Edison. His idea didn't violate any scientific principals.

It's not like he claimed that he'd developed a light bulb that created it's own power out of nothing.

 

[BeefStew42791]

oh please there were lots of people who said it couldn't be done. Just like how it was with galileo, Isaac newton, and others. And you are doing the exact same thing. EXCEPT you go one step further and even though it has been proven through experimentation and real world analysis to be true you still scoff.

And again, noone said you are creating power out of nothing with this system. The hydrogen and oxygen molecules are used in the process and thus is why it needs to be refilled. No energy can just come from nothing.

 

[Evan]

oh please there were lots of people who said it couldn't be done. Just like how it was with galileo, Isaac newton, and others. And you are doing the exact same thing. EXCEPT you go one step further and even though it has been proven through experimentation and real world analysis to be true you still scoff.

And again, noone said you are creating power out of nothing with this system. The hydrogen and oxygen molecules are used in the process and thus is why it needs to be refilled. No energy can just come from nothing.

You're comparing yourself to Newton??

You need to refill the system because you're using electrical energy to destroy the water in the tank. And you only get some of that energy back in useful form when you burn the Hydrogen. When the Hydrogen burns it bonds to Oxygen, creating water. This water goes out the tailpipe. So you need to refill the tank, but your net use of water is still really 0. Since your net use of water is 0, and you claim to be gaining energy, you're claiming to get energy from nothing.

 

[baddad457]

Ahhhh!

A hydrogen bomb uses nuclear FUSION to produce its energy.

The fusion reaction is triggered by a fission reaction.

Weaker nuclear bombs like the Fat Man rely on nuclear fission. The real early ones didn't even have plutonium and were surprisingly simple. They relied on a chemical explosion to shoot a uranium rod into a cluster of uranium "washers", resulting in critical mass.

Wrong answer. The original atom bomb consisted of a uranium core surrounded by TNT. The TNT imploded the uranium to produce the critical mass to start the chain reaction that produced the explosion. The hard part was triggering the TNT correctly to make it implode the uranium. And Fusion and Fission are two very different things. A third grader can tell you that.

 

[phatcap]

haha, you continue to amaze me. you don't think if this worked that some company out there would take the idea and market it to people and sell it in stores? i wasn't saying "oh just because it's in a store it must work like it says". you like to take peoples words and twist them around to try and make them look stupid. wtf? and it's not like i was defending oil companies. i just think it's a garbage excuse as to why this is not more widely available. they don't have that much control over the free market. and another thing, i was kidding about the gas gauge thing. you obviously weren't intelligent enough to pick up on that. shame on you...

 

[BeefStew42791]

You're comparing yourself to Newton??

You need to refill the system because you're using electrical energy to destroy the water in the tank. And you only get some of that energy back in useful form when you burn the Hydrogen. When the Hydrogen burns it bonds to Oxygen, creating water. This water goes out the tailpipe. So you need to refill the tank, but your net use of water is still really 0. Since your net use of water is 0, and you claim to be gaining energy, you're claiming to get energy from nothing.

Um, no I'm comparing people like you to all the ignorant critics out there who never gave good inventions a shot before they came up with their bs opinions that were based on nothing more then what "should" happen. And yes, that pretty much is it. Your theory is flawed in one way however. IF the hydrogen and oxygen atoms were to recombine to form water vapor the obviously there was a substantial amount of energy to not only perform the required combustion but also to join the two atoms. That is the point of hydrogen technology that nothing is wasted. Obviously you did get energy from the process because somewhere there had to be enough energy to combine them. BUT this is a mute point anyway because the hydrogen burns as a fuel.

 

[BeefStew42791]

haha, you continue to amaze me. you don't think if this worked that some company out there would take the idea and market it to people and sell it in stores? i wasn't saying "oh just because it's in a store it must work like it says". you like to take peoples words and twist them around to try and make them look stupid. wtf? and it's not like i was defending oil companies. i just think it's a garbage excuse as to why this is not more widely available. they don't have that much control over the free market. and another thing, i was kidding about the gas gauge thing. you obviously weren't intelligent enough to pick up on that. shame on you...

No I do not because one there is simply not enough of a demand for them due to the reasons I mentioned before AND also because the people who know what they're doing are smart enough to make them themselves, work all the bugs out of them, and not pay double for someone else to make it. And no you didn't say that but what you did say is that because its not in a store it must not work at all..hmm..sounds pretty critically biased to me. hahaahaaaaa do you even watch the news, "they don't have that much control over the free market" hahahaaaaa. Shame on me..what am I supposed to be offended by that?

 

[Jason]

IF the hydrogen and oxygen atoms were to recombine to form water vapor the obviously there was a substantial amount of energy to not only perform the required combustion but also to join the two atoms.

Three atoms. H2O, two hydrogen atoms bond to one oxygen atom to copmplete the outer shells of all three atoms through electron sharing.

 

[superdave1984]

Damn, and I thought I was argumentative.

Here's what we'll do to try and settle this one way or the other. I have at my disposal a Ford escape with V-6, auto. I'll build one of these things and see what happens. First order of business is to get some accurate MPG data, highway and city over the course of a few weeks. Then make a couple controlled road tests on a long stretch of interstate, filling up before and after, setting the cruise at 65 and making then trip. Then install the thing and make the same trip, same gas pump, same MPH. Then keep MPG data for a few more weeks and report the data. If it works, fine. If it doesn't fine. But will everybody be satisfied with the results? Probably not. But I am honest enough to report whatever the data shows. And there WILL be written accounts. Deal?

 

[Evan]

Um, no I'm comparing people like you to all the ignorant critics out there who never gave good inventions a shot before they came up with their bs opinions that were based on nothing more then what "should" happen. And yes, that pretty much is it. Your theory is flawed in one way however. IF the hydrogen and oxygen atoms were to recombine to form water vapor the obviously there was a substantial amount of energy to not only perform the required combustion but also to join the two atoms. That is the point of hydrogen technology that nothing is wasted. Obviously you did get energy from the process because somewhere there had to be enough energy to combine them. BUT this is a mute point anyway because the hydrogen burns as a fuel.

What is a "mute point"? I think you mean MOOT point.

You call me an ignorant critic, yet you have no understanding of how combustion works. When you burn something, Oxygen bonds to the element being burned. The result in this case is WATER. If you didn't ozidize the element here you didn't burn it.

 

[thantil]

It does not create energy but it does convert energy from one form to another.
that is not violating physics and is acceptable.